Allowed

M/S Golden Infr Private Limite and Anr. v. Harminder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Apr 2026CR/1813/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition setting aside the trial court order closing evidence against the petitioner. It granted one effective opportunity to lead evidence conditionally, citing a balance between quick disposal of a decade-old suit and preserving fair trial rights regarding summonsed witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.02.2026 set aside; one effective opportunity granted to lead evidence subject to strict conditions including deposit of Rs.25,000/- and no adjournments.

M/S Golden Infr Private Limite and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1813 of 2026 (O & M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

125

¶4

Civil Misc. No.4524-CII-2026 in/and Civil Revision No.1813 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision :-08.04.2026

¶5

M/s Golden Infrastructure Private Limited and another

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Harminder Singh and others

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advo c ate with Mr. Nimish Gautam, Advoc a te and Mr. Jasjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Adv o cate for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶14

CM-4524-CII-2026

¶15

Prayer in this application is for placing on record the

¶16

zimni or d ers as Annexure P-16.

¶17

The application is allowed s ubject to all just exceptions and the z i mni orders are taken on record a s Annexure P-16.

¶18

Civil Revision No.1813 of 2026

¶19

The present revision petitio n has been filed by defendant No.1 layi n g challenge to the order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-15) passed by the learned Additional Civ i l Judge (Senior Division),

¶20

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 14.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

Civil Revision No.1813 of 2026 (O & M) 2

¶22

Rupnaga r , whereby the evidence of the d e fendants has been closed by order of t h e Court and the matter has bee n fixed for final arguments.

¶23

It is inter alia submitted b y learned counsel for the petitione r that the grievance of the pet i tioner is that the impugned order ha s been passed ignoring mate r ial facts, namely that the applicati o n for examination of witnesses filed by the petitioner already s t ood allowed, requisite diet mo n ey had been deposited, and yet no co e rcive steps were adopted by th e learned trial Court to secure the prese n ce of the summoned witnesse s . It is further contended that the learn e d trial Court failed to take int o consideration that the order dated 06. 0 5.2025 (Annexure P-12), wher e by the cross-examination of defendan t No.5-Bhupinder Singh was treated as ‘Nil’, is under challeng e in Civil Revision No.3100 of 2025; and that the order dated 19.05.20 2 3 (Annexure P-8), permitti n g the petitioner to crossexamine d efendant No.5 prior to the pla i ntiff, is also under challenge in Civil R evision No.3293 of 2023, w h ich is pending adjudication before th i s Court.

¶24

A brief reference to the rel e vant facts, in chronological sequence , is necessary.

¶25

The respondents-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit on 05.08.20 1 4 seeking possession by way o f specific performance of an agreeme n t to sell along with conseq u ential relief of permanent injunctio n . Written statements were fi l ed by defendant No.1 and defendan t No.5 on 12.02.2019 and 07.05.2021 respectively.

¶26

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 14.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

Civil Revision No.1813 of 2026 (O & M) 3

¶28

Issues in the suit were f r amed on 18.05.2021. The evidence of the plaintiffs came to be clos e d on 08.09.2021.

¶29

The petitioner/defendant N o.1 moved an application dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P-4) seeki n g a direction that defendant No.5 be r equired to lead his evidence p r ior to defendants No.1 to 4. The said a pplication was allowed by the l earned trial Court vide order dated 11.11.2021 (Annexure P-5), as d e fendant No.5 had expressed no object i on to the said course.

¶30

Subsequently, the plaintiff s moved an application on 09.05.20 2 3 (Annexure P-6) seeking a di r ection that defendants No.1 to 4 be required to cross-examine d e fendant No.5 prior to the plaintiffs . The petitioner contested the same by filing reply dated 17.05.20 2 3 (Annexure P-7). However, t h e learned trial Court allowed the said application vide order dated 1 9.05.2023 (Annexure P-8), directing that defendants No.1 to 4 shall f irst cross-examine defendant No.5, fol l owed by the plaintiffs. The sa i d order has been challenged by the pe t itioner in Civil Revision No.32 9 3 of 2023, which is stated to be pendi n g adjudication.

¶31

It further emerges from the record that the evidence of defendan t No.5 was closed on 05.08.2 0 25. On the same date, the petitione r tendered his affidavit in evi d ence. However, vide order dated 17.02.2026, the learned trial C o urt proceeded to close the evidence of defendants No.1 to 4 and d efendant No.6, primarily on the grou n d that the matter falls within act i on plan cases and is pending

¶32

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 14.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

Civil Revision No.1813 of 2026 (O & M) 4

¶34

since th e year 2014, and that despit e several opportunities, the petitione r had failed to conclude his evid e nce.

¶35

At this stage, it is also s ignificant to note that the petitione r had already moved an app l ication for summoning his witnesse s , which stood allowed, and t h e requisite diet money had been de p osited. Despite the same, no effective or coercive steps appear t o have been taken by the lear n ed trial Court to secure the presence of the summoned witnesses.

¶36

Having considered the m a tter, this Court finds that although the suit is of the year 2014 and expeditious disposal is desirable , the approach adopted by the learned trial Court in closing the evide n ce of the defendants does not appear to be in consonance with the s ettled principles of law governi n g fair trial.

¶37

The right of a party to lead evidence is a valuable right and cann o t be curtailed in a mechanical m anner, particularly when the Court its e lf had earlier allowed the ap p lication for summoning of witnesse s and the party had complie d with the requirement of depositin g diet money. In such circumst a nces, it was incumbent upon the learn e d trial Court to take appropri a te coercive steps to procure the prese n ce of the summoned witnesses b efore closing the evidence. Further, it cannot be lost sight of that ce r tain orders having a bearing on the m a nner of recording evidence-na m ely orders dated 19.05.2023 and 06.0 5 .2025-are subject matter of c h allenge before this Court in pending r evision petitions. The effect of those proceedings also has a

¶38

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 14.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

Civil Revision No.1813 of 2026 (O & M) 5

¶40

material b earing on the rights of the peti t ioner to effectively lead and complete his evidence.

¶41

At the same time, this Cour t is also conscious of the fact that the matter is quite old and can n ot be permitted to linger indefinit e ly.

¶42

In these circumstances, bala n cing the equities and in the interest o f justice, this Court is of th e considered view that one effective opportunity deserves to be gra n ted to the petitioner to lead and conc l ude his entire evidence.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing fo r respondents No.1 to 3 has no objection in case only one opportunit y is granted to the petitioner to lead a n d conclude his entire evidence.

¶44

Accordingly, the present rev i sion petition is allowed . The impugne d order dated 17.02.2026 (An n exure P-15) passed by the learned A dditional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar, is hereby set aside.

¶45

It is directed that the petitio n er shall be granted only one effective opportunity to lead and co n clude his entire evidence, including production and examination of all his witnesses, on a date to be fixed b y the learned trial Court. This indulgence is, however, grante d subject to the following conditio n s:

¶46

The petitioner s hall ensure the presence of all his witnes s es on the date so fixed, without fail.

¶47

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 14.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

Civil Revision No.1813 of 2026 (O & M) 6

¶49

No adjournme n t shall be sought by the petitioner on an y ground whatsoever.

¶50

the petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the respondents before the next d ate fixed before the learned trial Court.

¶51

It is made clear that in c ase of failure to avail the opportun i ty so granted, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed f urther in accordance with law w ithout granting any further indulgen c e.

¶52

The learned trial Court shal l thereafter proceed with the matter e x peditiously and make an ende a vour to conclude the trial at the earlie s t.

¶53

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶54

April 08, 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶55

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

¶56

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 14.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Golden Infr Private Limite and Anr. v. Harminder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Golden Infr Private Limite and Anr. v. Harminder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gian Chand Vs Malkiat Singh and Another

Santosh Devi Vs Chander Shekhar Khare IAS and Another

Finstem Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gurinder Singh

Harjinder Singh Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others

Gurmail Singh and Others Vs Jeet Singh and Others

Puran Chand and Another Vs Lekh Raj and Others